Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S. Srivay Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

DRT29 Jan 2026OA/420/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a loan default. The defendants, a borrower and two guarantors, failed to file a written statement or adduce evidence, forfeiting their right to defend. The court held their claim unchallenged and liable.

What did the court decide?

Directed joint liability for Rs. 55,91,311.89 with interest; secured by hypothecated equipment; recovery certificate issued; costs awarded.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Srivay… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29NT DAY OF ]ANUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAIVIESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OR]GINAL APPLICATION NO. 420 OF 2022

¶4

Kotak lYahind ra Bank Ltd. 6-3- I lo9 ll/P / 302, 3'd Floor Jewel Pava ni Towers Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda Hydera bad-500082. Rep. by its Manager- Legal. ... .Applicant.

¶5

And

¶6

M/s. Srivay Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.68, Flat No.103 Bhanu Valley View Apts. Nandagiri Hills, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500033. Rep by its Managing Director - Mr. l"l. Venkata Raghunath.

¶7

Mr. lvlanduva Venkata Raghunath S/o Ramesh Babu, Aged about 36 years Occ: Managing Director of M/s. Srivay Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. H. No.8-3-231/W/42, Lakshmi Homes Near Women's Co-operative Society Road No.2, Khairatabad Hyderabad - 500045.

¶8

Mrs. Manduva Lakshmi Nayakamma W/o Ramesh Babu, Aged about 54 years Occ: Housewife, Near Women's - Co-operative Society, Road No.2, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500045.

¶9

.....Defendants.

¶10

Cou nsel for Applica nt : Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy. Cou nsel for Defendants : Mr. T. Sridhar Reddy. Ow"

oa.42ol2022

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.55,91,311.89Ps along with interest @187o per annum^jointly and severally from the defendants from date of Application till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule hypothecated equipment.

¶15

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, brlefly, are:

¶16

Defendant No.1 is the borrower and defendants 2 and 3 are the guarantors to the loan. Defendants availed commercial equipment loan against hypothecation of equipment so purchased out of the loans. Defendants committed default in repayment as per the agreed terms. Due to continued default, applicant bank issued notice on 27.07.2022 recalling the outstanding loan amount. Despite recall notice defendants failed to clear the dues. Hence, the OA.

¶17

Defendants right of filing written statement was forfeited for non-representation vide docket orders dated 76.04.2024.

¶18

Applicant Bank examined Abhishek P.S, Manager as AW-1 and marked 18 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.18,

¶19

Despite conditional order, defendants did not choose to adduce evidence. Accordingly, their right of adducing evidence was forfeited vide docket order dated 10.09.2025

¶20

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants prayed that orders may be passed based on records. Perused the material placed on record. OY'*

¶21

oa.42o/2022

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank would submit that the defendants not only committed default in repayment of loans but also did not choose to pursue the case either by filing written statement, adduce evidence or advance arguments in the matter. Therefore, applicant bank proved iis claim against the defendants unopposed on the strength of Exhibits A.1 to A.18 filed through the evidence affidavit of AW.1. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for allowing the OA claim ln the interest of justice.

¶24

8 The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and the OA schedule assets?

¶26

As stated supra, defendants did not pursue the case throughout. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affldavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.18 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, I hold that defendants 1 to 3 are^jointly and severally liable to pay the claim made by the Applicant Bank in the O.A with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.420/2022 is allowed as under:^- i) defendants 1 to 3 are^jointly and severally liable to pay a total sum of Rs.55,91,311.89Ps (Rs.15,48,684.81Ps towards loan account NoCE-757423, u'6"*

¶28

oA.42012022

¶29

Rs.15,66,160.90Ps towards loan account No. CE-757547, Rs.9,83,971.93Ps towards loan account No. CE-864914 and

¶30

Rs.L4,92,494.25Ps towards loan account No. CE-899755 respectively) to the applicant bank with future interest @9.25olo per annum simple from the date of application till the date of rea lization;

¶31

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of OA schedule equipment and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶32

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶34

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on official Web Portal.

¶37

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day ofJanuary, 2026)

¶38

OW** (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S. Srivay Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S. Srivay Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. G. Narasing Rao

Yes Bank versus Ravanaboina Malleshwari

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Sri Vinayaka Enterprises.

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. MD Abdul Rasheed S/o. Mr. Mohd Abdul Ghafoor

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Mr. Ayathulla Khan

Harinath Pendyala versus Axis Bank